












S'. ’f** ' • 





» 


4 




1 



I 








* 




u 


I 


I 


I 


» 

i 

1 % 




• «« 



* 


* 









t 


• ^ 

■ !•► 

• » ■ 

I 








«% 




..X 


» 






I 


♦ 


I 


9 


Yi- 


i 








k?. 


A 



* 


# 




f 




\ 




« 

»( 


V 


'fc 


#■ I ^ 


. * ••.,•» 




J 


« 




» 


.A 



i 


1^ 


. ^ 
V 

V 



1 / 











LIBERTY AND ORDER. 


ADDRESS 

DELIVEUED EEFOKE THE 

New York Association for the Advancement of 
Science and Art, 


7, 1876, 

BY THE 


Hon. John T. Hoffman, 

IC.r-(ii>revnor of the St^tfe Yorh. 


NEW YORK: 

UNrTED STATES RUBLTSHING COMPANY, 

13 UNIVEHSITY TLACE. 

1870. 















V 




J 


< 


» /■ * 










• -';••■ v'.^r/ 

. - • • *w^-V, ^ . 
>,t i.- ./ . 

--• ** 

^ ■- ;■ ' 




> 

■ V 


V . 


' • - * 

• >v • • 


• .^■ 


■« «« 
- ' 


I*" 


'i 


LIBERTY AND ORDER. 


A VERY large assembly filled tlie Reformed Church, corner of 
Fifth Avenue and Twenty-first Street, in the city of Kew York. 
Many distinguished citizens, jurists, divines and others, were 
present. In the desk with the speaker were William H. Wick¬ 
ham, Esq., Mayor of the city; Hon. Daniel Haines, Ex-Governor 
of Hew Jersey; and Rev. Dr. E. P. Rogers, Vice-President of 
the Association. Rev. S. Irengeus Prime, D.D., the President, in¬ 
troduced Gov. Hoffman, who said : 

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: —I come here to¬ 
night with some misgivings. I am not about to deliver what is 
commonly called a “ popular lecture.” Hor ought it to be my 
effort to sa}^ merely popular things. My subject gives no oppor¬ 
tunity for pleasing utterances about the centennial glories of the 
Republic, nor for eloquent denunciations of the evils and evil- 
doei*s of the times. It confines me to political mistakes if we 
have made any, and to the remedies therefor, if I can think of 
any. I know how difiHicult it is to interest an audience in a dry 
discussion of questions connected with government, but when I 
cast my eye over this assemblage, and see so many here who 
represent the intellect and thought of this city, I take courage 
and indulge the hope that I shall have a patient hearing, while 
I speak of things which concern our common welfare. 

Purke, in one of his great speeches, said: “We are called 
upon as it were by a warning voice to attend to America; to 
attend to the whole of it together; and to review the subject 
with an unusual degree of care and calmness. Surely,” he adds, 
“ it is an awful subject.” 

In spite of warnings from her greatest prophets, England 
failed to take care of America; and the task passed over "to us, 
the American People. 

In the same speech the orator added: “Public Calamity is a 
great leveller, and there are occasions when any, even the slight- 

1 



est chance of doing good must be laid hold of even by the most 
inconsiderable person.” 

The present condition of the private industry and public 
affairs of our country justifies us in looking upon this as a time 
of public calamity; and all questions touching the interests of 
America demand the most sober.and thoughtful consideration 
by its people. As one among the forty millions, who have in 
our joint keeping its destinies, I have accepted your invitation 
to say something about Liberty and Order and the Powers of 
Government,” or rather of ‘‘ That Government, wdiich well ad¬ 
ministered produces in the nation (so called), in states, and in 
cities. Liberty and Order as its natural fruits.” > 

Liberty and order are not antagonistic; on the contrary, lib¬ 
erty is safe only where order prevails. Order there may be in 
a commanit}^ and no personal freedom ; on the other hand, how¬ 
ever, liberty has no chance for existence and growth except in 
the midst of order. Men know this instinctively ; and the most 
liberty-loving people will give up their freedom rather than lose 
social order. 

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF GOVERNMENT. 

♦ 

Government is ordained of God. Human government, the 
government of man by man, is ordained of God. Man is created 
to live in companionship with his fellows. The severest punish¬ 
ment we can inflict upon him is solitude. Society cannot exist 
without order, without certain general rules of conduct wdth 
which every one must conform. The instrumentality through 
which, society, prescribes and enforces these rules we call 
“ Government.”;; . ; 

/ ( While, however,Government” is ordained of God, no special 
form of it-is .prescribed by Him. “ Government ” He has de¬ 
creed we shall have: wdiether it shall be a Kepiiblic, an Oligarchy, 
or a Monarchy, or an}^ modification of these forms, is left for us 
to choose., . ... : , 

As government is,not.an invention of man, so, also, the forms 
which;government assumes are not shaped in the student’s closet. 
They are matters oL grow,thj and the shape they take seems to be 
very much dependent upon,race. , ,, 

Society,’nevertheless,ds not absolute oyer the individual. We 
have each a world within; us,mn vfhieh there'is no, ruler save con¬ 
science., .All. persqnaLfreedqni consistent with public order is 
man’s rightnot"derived from a fancied condition of his, anterior 
to society, but born-'-with; him;- insociety and founded on the 
nature which God has given to him. ; , 



3 


■ '' What are the proper limitations of government, and how much 
of free will and free action can be reserved by or allowed to the 
individual, without endangering public order, has been the prob¬ 
lem of the ages and is the problem of to-day. 

“Everywhere,” said Franklin, “there is a general dread of 
giving too much power to the governors, and yet,” he adds, “I 
think we are in more danger from too little obedience in the 
governed.” “ Obedience,” says Burke, “ is what makes govern¬ 
ment; ” but I would add: that obedience which is mere sub¬ 
mission to force is not the kind on which great states thrive. 

“ Bender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s ” is the direc¬ 
tion to Christians from their highest authority. Obedience is a 
religious duty. But then comes the question : What are, or rather 
what ought to be, “ the things that are Caesar’s ” ? What matters 
ought to be under tbe dominion of the government, and what 
left to be regulated by the will of each individual ? It was thought 
necessary to the governments of Europe that the state should 
regulate religion. We started out one hundred years ago with a 
•complete divorce of church and state; has religion suffered? 
Would we now, after the century’s experience, be willing to put 
our personal relations to God under the dominion of the state ? 

It is in this same direction that further improvement is probably 
to be found. Beduce the machinery of government, give it as 
little as possible to do. Thus the chance of abuses will be 
lessened, while the watchfulness of the people can be more com¬ 
pletely applied. There are things which it is essential to good 
•order that all citizens should do; there are things which it is 
essential to good order that all citizens should refrain from doing; 
'in such things there can be no liberty; the individual must con¬ 
form and obey. The area of liberty is to be extended, not by 
weakening the authority of government in the things which per¬ 
tain to it; but by taking away from it all control over things 
which need not be assigned to it; in which the exertion of its 
power is not necessary to “ order.” 

' If we keep this distinction in view we need have no fear that 
liberty will endanger order. And bear in mind what another 
has well said, that “ Liberty is not only a private blessing of the 
first order, but the vital spring and energy of the state itself, 
which has just so m-uch life and vigor as there is liberty in itP 
' I shall not attempt to suggest any remedy for 

EVILS INHERENT IN OUR SYSTEM 

of government. There is none. There are, however, functional 
derangements which may be cured ; but no view of the questions 


4 


before us, as applied to our own case, can be worth anything, 
except it be taken from the position, that the people of America 
have determined to have, in Federal, State and muncipal affairs, 
a free, popular government: and that they cannot be induced 
by ai’gument, or (lomjDelled by force, to yield the power which 
they liave reserved to themselves. 

When we entered upon the experiment of the republic, our 
whole population, varying little in character, was less than that 
of the State of N'ew York to-day. IS’ow we have forty millions; 
a strangely diversified mass. The population then was almost 
exclusively rural, widely scattered, frugal, industrious, as it was 
restless also under the hand of arbitrary power. There were no 
large cities ; no overcrowded centres of trade, teeming with cor¬ 
rupting luxury, depressing poverty, and compacted ignorance 
and crime. Local government was easy and simple; required 
little vigilance; gave no anxiety. Now the question of local 
government, especially in great cities, is the question of the day. 

If in our towns, villages, and great cities we cannot protect 
the rights of persons and property, punish crime, preserve order, 
maintain liberty, and on all occasions and against all assaults as¬ 
sert the majesty of law, the vast pyramid which is built upon the 
foundation of the capacity of the people to govern themselves in 
their several neighborhoods must crumble. We shall seek refuge 
in some form of government which, even if it does not manifest 
a paternal regard for our comfort, will at least exert paternal 
power. 

Republics are founded on the Divine right of the people to 
look after their own affairs. They are well founded only when 
ability to do so exists, as well as the claim of right. The voice 
of the people may be called the Voice of God, but only when it 
is the utterance of intelligent, disciplined, patriotic minds ; not 
the muttering of the ignorant, the selfish, and of the ill-trained 
and ill-thinking bigot or fanatic, or of those who do not think at 
all. 

I do not say that unsettled problems in government are to be 
solved merely by the spread of what we nowadays call “ edu¬ 
cation.” The trained and sharpened intellect is often used for 
selfish ends, in disregard of the general good. On the other hand, 
however, every man untrained to do his own thinking, aided by 
some knowledge of the history of human affairs, is liable, even 
with honest purpose, to be misled into giving his voice in opposi¬ 
tion to the well-being of himself and of his fellows. Knowledge 
is not wisdom; but it is the path by which we may attain wisdom. 
Knowledge is not virtue, but it is the means whereby we may 
more readily and accurately distinguish between right and wrong. 


5 


Tliere are children bred in this city who never learn that it is 
wrong to steal nntil condemned to prison by law; and then it 
is too late to profit much by the lesson. If they plead ignorance 
we answer carelessly : “ No one has a right to be ignorant of the 
law.” But has a government the right to permit its people to 
grow up in this ignorance ? If it fails to see to it that every one 
within its jurisdiction learns what those things are which the 
state forbids to be done, is it any l)etter than the tyrant of old 
who hung the tablets of the law so high that none could read 
them ? 


GENERAL SUFFRAGE THE BEST GUARANTY. 

Suffrage, of itself, is no panacea for political evils. If ignor¬ 
ant, it is easily controlled by combinations of money and power. 
Nevertheless, general suffrage is the best guaranty to both 
governors and governed ; is the best protection at once to liberty 
and to order. A community may get on, with a suffrage exer¬ 
cised in part by ignorant and vicious men, so long as the pro- 
poi’tion of these be not so large as to hold, as it were, the balance 
of power ; enabling tliem to effect tem})orary corrupt alliances 
with the leaders of contending parties, now on one side, now on 
the other. The safety of a republic does not require universal 
intelligence and honesty; such a community exists nowhere ; 
but it does require that intelligence and patriotic purpose shall 
prevail veiy largely among its citizens. In a i*epublic, “ the 
people is king,” and as is the character of tlie king, such will be 
the character of the government. We cannot afford to have the 
people untrained and ignorant, bad in purpose, or slothful in the 
performance of duty. 

Ignorance, vice and bigotry, if largely infused, make a com¬ 
munity incapable of self-goveiTunent. When under any leader¬ 
ship these elements become well enough organized to control the 
politics of city or state, they become of course the government, 
bad in tendency and despotic in rule. It is the ease with which, 
in a compact community, the ignorant, the vicious and the big¬ 
oted can get together and can be organized by men who know’ how 
to use the combination for their owm ends, that makes good gov¬ 
ernment in large cities so difficult. It would make it impossible 
but for the one-man power, so often exercised under cover of 
some popular organization. In su(;h case the managing men, one 
being chief, constitute what in familiar phrase is called a regenc^L 
This name is not synonymous wfith ring, for by ring is meant a 
combination of men of opposing parties, using the power of their 
secret alliance for personal aggrandizement, wdiile the name of 
regency with us derives respectability from the old Albany regency. 


6 

' • ^ 

a body of men well known. in> the ;liistpry;of politics, who were alb 
of one party and;who were fondpf .power, but exerted it in tlie. 
interests of,good government, for, the benefit of the pecple, and 
who kept high the tone of ])iiblicnnorals. 

. ^ ^ . . ' ■ . ■ .. b . 

if;,, ' rpjjp. ONE-MAN POWER. ‘ -V'. 

Thus, even in this, the most popular government known to 
liistory, does power steal away from the many to, the few, and 
often turns to one political chieftain. Here, where w'e have so; 
holy a horror of the “ one-man power,” the interests of the com¬ 
munity are often guarded for a time (sometimes injiired) by the 
inclinations of one man, and that man, not unfrequently, one not 
in official life. This is tlie one-man power, an essential element 
in evei-y government, whether of the people, of a party organiza¬ 
tion, of ,a railroad company, or of any otiier branch of private 
business, reasserting itself. 

AVe have unwisely sliut it out from our State constitution and 
our city charters ; still it makes itself felt, because in the nature 
of things it is a necessity. 

We refuse the necessary, undivided, executive power to the 
official openly chosen by the voice of the people ; it is seized hy 
some one else, self-appointed, or selected in secret by a few. In 
framing of late years our forms of government, both State and 
local, we liave been led astray from the best model of goverment 
we have before us, namely, the Constitution of the United’States, 
under which “ The Administration ” is the one man who has-been 
cliosen president by the people. lie has around him advisers .of 
his own cho(xsing, but no equals. The executive branch ofmn 
effective government must always consist of a single head, and to 
that head must be accouiitable the officers entrusted witli every 
part of the actual administi-ation of the government. 

A despotism is the rule of one man for an unlimited period, 
and subject to no law save that of his own will; that is a power 
to be dreaded. In a free government you must still have one 
man as chief ruler; but there can be no dangerous one-man 
power in a republic, with its frequent elections. The chief mag¬ 
istrate is merely the temporary agent of the people to enforce 
their laws, not his own; laws prescribed hy them through 
another agenc}^; he is himself subject to these laws ; is in power 
for a short term ; is in fear of popular condemnation at the end 
of it; may be removed even before it ends, by impeachment; 
may be otherwise punished, like other men, for abuse of his 
trust. 

If you will not have this regulated one-man power in your 


7 - 


government yon will have it coming up irregularly, as I have ; 
shown. What we should hold in dread is the irresponsible one- ■ 
man power which may come in as the consequence of bad govern¬ 
ment among us, resulting from the w^eak6ning of authority and 
the confusion of responsibility. 

No good substitute can be found for a single executive power. 
Substitutes have been tried. The two kings of Sparta and the 
two consuls of Rome were failures. The distribution of admin¬ 
istrative power among independent heads of departments at Al- 
bai\y is a failure. The distribution of power and responsibility 
in this city among boards and commissions has l>een a most 
costly failui-e. 

• To promote good administration under any form of govern¬ 
ment, one man must, subject to the laws, be, for the time being, 
chief, whether he be called prime minister, president, governor 
or Mayor. 

• And a single executive has this advantage, that, independent 
of the restraints of law, there are certain moral restraints which 
act upon an individual, but are inefficient when we seek to apply 
them to bodies of men, or to a number of men among whom re¬ 
sponsibility is divided. Conscience is not a thing which can safe¬ 
ly be distributed, a little bit for the separate use of each individ¬ 
ual member of a numerous body. A man is capable of shame; 
a body of men, as is well known, feels in a much less degree 
this natural restraint npon human conduct. 

I have dwelt upon the administrative or executive part of gov¬ 
ernment, because it is in dealing with this branch that we have 
made, as I think, the most serious mistakes, in our successive 
State Constitutions and have departed most widely from the 
model which we still think it wise to retain, in unimpaired in¬ 
tegrity, for the United States Government. How we anay most 
wisely choose our legislative bodies and construct our judicial 
system, are questions upon which suggestions might be expected; 
but the limits of this lecture make anything more than inciden¬ 
tal allusions to these two branches of government impossible. 

THE DUTY OF THE STATE. 

It is idle to discuss abstract doctrines, except to apply them, 
practically, to our own condition. As I have said, suffrage is 
not a remedy for, or a prevention of, political evils, unless it be 
a suffrage of intelligence and honesty. And here comes in the 
first practical suggestion of what a government like ours ought 
to do, each state of course acting within its own limits. It is 
the duty of the state to have the people instructed so far at least 

■■ i 


8 


as to fit them, or enable them to fit themselves, for the political 
duties which our system of government imposes on them. I do 
not mean that every man sliould be prepared at public expense 
to be governor of his state or president of the United States. 
But every voter should be capable of taking his part, with intel¬ 
ligence, in the task of selecting public officers. To ])repare the 
people for their duties needs in each state and under its regula¬ 
tion a system of general public education, which shall be fi'ee 
from the interference of factions and of sects. The free com¬ 
mon school, the corner-stone of a republican state, should be 
held firmly in its place by its organic law. There need be no 
doubt about the moral lessons it should enforce, they are re¬ 
spect for authority, self-restraint, toleration, love of liberty, obe¬ 
dience to law, order. 

It is the most potent enemy to ignorance, vice, bigotry, and 
violence. Men have in all ages, in a battle for creeds, destroyed 
life and property, resisted civil authority, deposed monarchs, 
overthrown governments ; but no conspiracy against just govern¬ 
ment was ever hatched in a schooMiouse, nor was ever a mob 
led by a teacher. 


THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

It being my purpose to make my remarks especially applicable 
to state and local governments, I shall say only a few words 
about the federal government. They are necessary to what shall 
follow. Any reference to “ State Rights ” by name startles men 
nowadays. It need not. The attempt to preserve what men 
called state rights, by the violence of armed revolution, has been 
made and failed; it has demonstrated in fact that nothing can 
endanger actual rights more than such a movement. But the up¬ 
holding of the proper independence and integrity of state gov¬ 
ernments by argument befoi-e the people, in debate over legisla¬ 
tion in Congress, in discussion before the courts, need startle no 
one. It leads to proper and thoughtful consideration of a danger 
which many of us fear is hanging over us, the 

CENTRALIZATION OF POWER AT WASHINGTON, 

to a degree involving the destruction of the independent local 
governments on which our whole system is founded. We are 
bound to struggle to preserve the pi’oper independence of our state 
and local governments: for the existence of the several states 
with their state governments unimpaired, is necessary to the life 
of the republic. The tendency of the federal government since 
the war of the rebellion, to extend its power over many things here¬ 
tofore regulated by each state for itself, is manifest. 


9 


\ et it would seem that the duties proper of the federal 
government, as assigned to it by the Constitution of tlie United 
States, are enough to occupy the attention of the men entrusted 
with its administration. To maintain our intercourse with for¬ 
eign nations ; to keep our nav}" in readiness for efficient service; 
to administer the affairs of the war department; to manage our 
relations with the Indian tribes; to keep up a well-regulated 
mail service ; to enforce honesty and efficiency in the collection 
of its vast revenues; and to contrive just now some method of pay¬ 
ing its dishonored obligations which are in every man’s pocket, 
alk this would seem enough for the federal government to do, 
if it would do it well. Especially so if we bear in mind that it 
has to do all these things now, not for thirteen poor provinces, 
stretched a narrow strip along the Atlantic Ocean, but for a first- 
class power among the nations, over a territory that absorbs the 
best part of the continent; that it has to do these things, not, as 
in the beginning, for four millions, but for forty millions of peo¬ 
ple, and may soon have to do them for a hundred millions. 

It is not safe for the federal government to volunteer to take 
upon itself additional labor. 

It is a common weakness of human nature, that instead of con¬ 
centrating our efforts on doing well those things which are set 
down for us to do, we busy ourselves with imagining how much 
better we could perform the duties assigned to others. 

Behind this advancing centralization, upon which so man}' look 
complacently, is hidden the spirit of Tyranny, ever at war with 
the freedom of states and the liberty of man. It walks disguised, 
and can be defied and defeated only by eternal vigilance. It 
works from afar, not through the home governments which are 
close under the eye of the people. It steals into statute-books, 
marring the majesty of law. How well has our own Bryant 
warned us against this malign spirit and its wiles ! Addressing 
Freedom, he says: 

“ Thy birthright was not given by human hands,” 

“ Thou wert twin born with man.” 

. “ Tyranny himself,” 

“ Thy enemy, although of reverend look,” 

“ Hoary with many ^ears, and far obeyed,” 

“ Is later born than thou; and as he meets ” 

‘ ‘ The grave defiance of thine elder eye ” 

“ The usurper trembles in his fastnesses.” 

“ Thou shalt wax stronger with the lapse of years,” 

“But he shall fade into a feebler age ; ” 

“ Feebler, yet subtler. He shall weave his snares” 

“ And spring them on thy careless steps, and clap” 

“His withered hands and from their ambush call” 

“ His hordes to fall upon thee. He shall send ” 

“ Quaint maskers, wearing fair and gallant forma” 



10 



“ To catch thy gaze and uttering graceful words” ’ ! t 

“ To charm thy ear; while his sly imps, by stealth,” ,, , ^ 

” Twine round thee threads of steel, light thread on thread,” ‘ / 

“ That grow to fetters ; or bind down thy arms” ’’ ^ '7 

” With chains concealed in chaplets. Oh! not yet” 

‘ ‘ Mayst thou unbrace thy cor.slet, nor lay by ” ' ‘. s , t > 

“ Thy sword ; nor yet, Oh Freedom! close thy lids ” 

“ In slumber ; for thine enemy never sleeps,” ' ’ 

” And thou must watch and combat till the day ” ' ' ' J ^ 'i* 1 

“ Of the New Earth and Heaven.” ‘ * f 


To centralize in tlie geiieral o^overnment power which properly 
belongs to and can be exercised by the states is practical revolu¬ 
tion. It is the substitution of another form of government in the 
place of that established by our fathers. 

The most effectual Avay to resist this tendency is to improve 
the character of our state governments and the local governments 
within them, so that the public sentiment shall be less likely to 
turn to the federal government for everything. 

Thomas Jefferson said: “ Let the federal government be en¬ 
trusted with the defence of the nation, and the foreign and fede¬ 
ral relations; the state goveiinnents with the civil riglits, laws, 
police and administration of what concerns the state; the coun¬ 
ties with the local coiK'.erns of the counties, and each town direct 
the interests within itself, placing under eveiy one what his own 
eye may superintend, that all may be done for the best.” 

“I do believe” (he adds) “that if the Almighty has not decreed 
that man shall never be free, and it is blasphemy to believe that, 
that the secret will be found to be in making himself the deposi¬ 
tory of the powers respecting himself so far as he is competent 
to them. The elementary repul)lics of the towns, the county re¬ 
publics, the states, the republic of tlie Union, would form a grada¬ 
tion of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding 
every one its delegated share of power, and constituting truly a 
system of fundamental balances and checks for the government.” 

These were the ideas of one who combined the powers of a 
philosophic student with the aptitude and experience of practical 
statesmanship. If they have failed of full success, it is because 
they have not been faithfully applied. 


UNDERCURRENTS OF SENTIMENT. 

(In this general branch of the subject one suggestion more. 

Great issues in connection with government are often deter¬ 
mined by the hearts, rather than the heads of the peop)le; and it 
is a common error, in estimating the probable course of events 
in a republic, to make no allowance for strong undercurrents of 
sentiment, wliich sweep everything along with irresistible force. 

The greater the average of prosperity among the people, the 



11 ‘: ' . ■:' 

greater will be the average of popiilar content and obedience to 
■ anthority. All legislative or’government .policy which favors 
particular classes or interests, which jbiiilds np class power, grants 
special privileges, ci-eates or protects monopolies, or levies taxes 
« upon any pretext or under whatever name, except for the direct 
., and necessary support of government, is unwise, and dangerous 
- to the permanence of good order. 

' ' • LESSON OF THE CIVIL WAK. ' ‘ 

Many of the evils from which we now suffer are the results of 
the waste and demoralization which invariably accompany and 
follow a great war, more especially a civil war. Burke said : 
“Civil wars strike deepest of all into the manners of the people ; 
they vitiate their politics; they corrupt their morals; they per¬ 
vert even the natural taste and relish of equity and justice.” 
From the exceptional condition of things to which we are now 
subject, we should have been, in no degree, relieved by a differ¬ 
ent form of government, and I feel safe in affirming that even 
now, in the midst of our temporary misfortunes, the average of 
well-being, contentment and good order in this country is greater 
than can be found elsewhere. 

I wish to say a few words to those who are longing for what 
they call a strong government. We must beware how we draw 
the life-blood from the extremities to the heart. Congestion is 
not strength ; it is death.* 

France has for centuries been a government of complete cen¬ 
tralization. It was such under its kings; such under both the 
emperors; is such to-day under what is called “The Kepublic.” 
The provinces and municipalities are all ruled from the capital, 
not by their own people. We have Americans who travel 
abroad, look only at the smooth polished surface of French 
affairs, and contrast this with the state of things here, unfavor¬ 
ably to ourselves. Give to such men clean streets, and a good 
cab service, and they will give in exchange free speech, a free 
press, and a free country. These are the men who admired the 
strong government of the second Napoleon. The strength of his 
government was suddenl}’ put to the test, when the German 
army crossed the French boundary. The so-called strong gov¬ 
ernment had been resting so long upon a people unaccustomed 
to self-reliance, that almost at the first touch of the hand of the 
enemy the whole structure fell, the flames from the public build¬ 
ings of Baris, fired by its own citizens, lighting up the ruins. 

, "We, on the contrary, when our great war broke out, had a 
central government very limited in apparent power, limited to 


12 


the care of a few things. It had never meddled with the local 
affairs of the people. It proved to he the strongest government 
in the world. It was hacked and braced by a self-reliant people, 
trained to take care of themselves. It was strong because it had 
not by absorbing all powei* to itself weakened the people. They 
Iiad been left to govern themselves in their own neighl)orhoods. 
Wl)en early in the war the central government was cut off from 
communication with the country, there was no despair; no cessa¬ 
tion of preparations to meet the emergencies of the times. These 
were made just as rapidly as if under government orders; com¬ 
mittees of citizens raised millions of money, and sent forward 
men and munitions of war. The state and county and city and 
town authorities did not lose their vigor because for a time they 
could not hear from Washington. When communication wdth 
the capital was resumed, the government found that the people 
under lead of their local authorities, without orders from the cen¬ 
tral government, had done just what it would have asked to be 
done. So all through the war, the work of filling up the armies, 
and of providing means for much of the expenses, was done by 
town meetings and the local authorities. If these local authori¬ 
ties had been accustomed to receive instructions from the cen¬ 
tral government, had been its chosen agents instead of the chosen 
agents of their neighbors, they would have been much less potent 
to do what they did, na}' would have been incapable of doing it. 
The lesson of the war is that the carrying out of the Jefferso¬ 
nian theory malces the strongest government. 

OUR GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST 

that could have been devised for the three or four millions of 
a hundred years ago, it is the best for the forty millions of to-day, 
it is the best for the hundred millions of the future, if we ad¬ 
here to and carry out its true theory. 

Centralization, on the other hand, is certain death to our repub¬ 
lican system, and to the Union. 

It is wrong to confound, as some do, concentration of power 
in proper officers, with centralization. Over certain matters the 
powcj* of the federal government must be complete and exclusive. 
To give to the President all executive power in the things so as¬ 
signed to the fedei'al government—to Congress all legislative 
power, and to the supreme court all judicial power in these things, 
is not centralization ; it is simply a necessary concentration of 
power, in the agent to whom we assign certain duties. To bestow 
on the Governor of this state, the power necessary to enforce the 
laws of the state, and on the Mayor of this city, all necessary 


13 


executive power iu the administration of the affairs of the city ; 
that is concentration of power in the proper hands, power ade¬ 
quate to the duties and responsibilities imposed. Without this 
concentration, there is no real responsibility; witliout it we can¬ 
not justly hold the chief executive accountable for his due ad¬ 
ministration of the government; we fail to enjoy what the Eng¬ 
lish-speaking race prides itself upon, responsible government. 

But to assign to the governor any of the duties which properly 
belong to the mayor of a city, to the central government of the state 
any of the power of control over their own home affairs which 
should pertain to localities, that is centralization. For the legisla¬ 
ture of the state to ffx the amount of the annual taxes to be levied 
in this city for exclusively local purposes, as it did for many years, 
is centralization. In fact, when the legislature by a mandatory act 
(as it is constantly doing) imposes taxes for purely local purposes 
upon this or any other city, or any other locality of the state, it 
violates the first principle of free government, that a community 
shall not be taxed without its own consent. 

OUK STATE CONSTITUTION CRITICISED. 

Let me illustrate more clearly, by reference to the history of 
our own state, the difference between the proper concentration 
and the improper centralization of power. The framers of the 
constitution of 1846, under which with a few changes we still 
carry on what we call a state government, were eager for decen¬ 
tralization of power. They effected nothing of consequence in 
this direction ; they did not secure the rights of cities, counties, 
towns or villages in matters of local concern, nor abridge the 
powers of the state government over local interests. 

The chief thing they did was to break apart and disconnect 
the machinery whereby the state government is carried on. 
They provided for a governor whose duty is said to be to execute 
the laws, and to administer the affairs of the state; and then 
gave to the people, not to the governor, the power to select all 
the subordinate officers on whom he must rely in their several 
departments for performing the actual details of administration. 
They made the mistake of supposing this was decentralization. 
They have made other people believe it was, also. 

This system did not take away any of the powers of the cen¬ 
tral or state government. It retained in the central government 
at Albany the administrative power, but lodged it in and di¬ 
vided it among some half-dozen independent heads of depart¬ 
ments, each absolute in his own sphere. It created, in fact, half 
a dozen governors instead of one, each of them charged with ex- 


14 


editing a portion of the laws, free from control by the others, 
or b}^ the nominal head of the state. The comptroller is gover¬ 
nor, so far as the finances are concerned. The attorney-general 
is governor as to the law business of the state. The three state 
prison inspectors togetlier make up another governor for the 
prisons. The administration of the canals is entrusted to aboard 
made up of several independently elected heads of departments, 
the governor of the state being carefull}^ left out. The so-called 
“ governor,” who was in old times often spoken of as “ the person 
administering the government of the state ” is charged by the 
words of the constitution “ to take care that the laws are faith¬ 
fully executed,” and at the same time is deprived of all power 
to select the agents through whom they are to be executed. lie 
is ordered to govern the state, while the power to govern is taken 
away from him. 

Kvery one would see the absurdity of such an administration 
at Washington. Suppose all the secretaries and the attorney- 
general elected by the people independently of the president, 
at different times and by different parties: we should have eight 
or ten presidents instead of one. A hard-money head president 
perhaps, and a soft money secretary of the treasury ; a peace¬ 
ably disposed secretary of state, who would like to keep us out 
of war with foreign powers, and a warlike secretary of the navy 
who would like to plunge us into one ; the secretary of war 
might be undecided and hesitate between the two, and the 
attorney-general would be overwhelmed with calls for all sorts 
of opinions; while the chief magistrate himself would sit in 
dumb show, in the White House, wondering what else he was 
made for. 

From an administration so selected for the federal government, 
we could expect nothing but confusion and ruin. 

NEED OF A SINGLE EXECUTIVE POWER. 

It is just as absurd to expect good government in this state or 
in this city, until you conform with the experience of ages, and 
establish a single and united executive power. On this execu¬ 
tive power the legislature and the judiciary are the proper and 
sufficient restraints; and because they are restraints upon it, I 
would have the judiciary, as well as the legislature, chosen inde¬ 
pendent of it. I am not opposed to the election of the judges 
of our higher courts by the people. I favoi- it. You may elect 
now and then a bad judge, but as a class those chosen will be as 
they hitherto have been—fearless, able, independent men. The 
elective system is not the only one which has produced judges 


15 


who have dishonored the bench.' History abounds in illustra¬ 
tions—our own brief history affords some. 

Of course if the people are incapable of choosing wise men 
to make their laws, and honest and fearless judges to inter¬ 
pret them, if we cannot be reasonably sure about these proper 
restraints upon executive power, that is a defect that lies deep. 
But to those who are ready to lose faith in popular government, 
I say : give the people a fair chance ; doirt ask them to do im¬ 
possibilities ; don’t expect them to run the government with crazy 
machinery. 

When Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, and compelled 
the President to retain in his cabinet, as conffdential advisers and 
as confidential subordinates, his personal enemies, it was a mad 
mistake—made in passion, not in wisdom. 

The division of power and i*esponsibility in our state government 
among several independent heads of departments has proven to be 
full of mischief. It often happens that the rest of the state admin¬ 
istration is made up of men, all of them, hostile in politics to 
the governor ; sometimes a portion are with him and another por¬ 
tion against him. Sometimes the several members, of the state 
administration are at swords’ points in their personal relations. 
At the beginning of this year the governor’s message and the 
comptroller’s report were sent to the legislature. These officers 
are political opponents, and not intimate personal friends. Both 
assert the improved financial condition of the state, and each 
claims the credit of it. If the government of New York was 
organized as it should be, there would be no room for such un¬ 
seemly things. It is reported in the newspapers that the comp¬ 
troller *this year refused to let the governoi', while preparing his 
message, see advanced sheets of his annual report. It is miim- 
portaiil whether this be true or not ; it is enough that it is possi¬ 
ble. The information which the governor gets of the financial 
condition of the state is now given as a matter of courtesy, not 
of right. It should be given as a matter of obedience; an obe¬ 
dience that could be enforced. The jarring condition of the 
departments of the local government of this city proves that it 
also is sadly in need of repair, and of that kind which will insure 
unity of action and concentrated responsibility. 

In 1872, when Governor of New York, in my annual message, 
I urged these views, as to state government, at length, upon the 
attention of the legislature and the people, and suggested greater 
safeguards against faulty, hurried and special legislation; con¬ 
stitutional restraints upon the granting of special privileges, and 
upon legislative awards of extra compensation to contractors 
upon . public works, a provision making the veto power of the 


16 


governor more effective, a reconstruction of the legislature, 
especially of the Senate, and enlarged powers to the board of 
supervisors to the end that home government might be strength¬ 
ened. 

A commission was appointed to consider these suggestions. 
The work of that commission has resulted in their partial adop¬ 
tion by 


CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 

E-estraints have been imposed upon special legislation and special 
privileges, awards of extra compensation to contractors forbidden, 
and the governor has been greatly strengthened in his veto power. 

But upon the point of strengthening the governor in his con¬ 
trol over and supervision of the heads of departments of the 
state government; although the commission reported substan¬ 
tially in favor of it, the work has thus far failed of success. 
Demagogues of both parties raised the cry of “ centralization and 
one-man power ; ” combinations of men caring nothing for good 
government, and only for themselves, worked to defeat it. There 
was enough of the old leaven of the constitutional convention of 
1846 to leaven the whole lump of the opposition. Some opposed 
because of pride in the constitution which they had helped to 
make, and because jealous of any attempt to make things better. 
Some merely held their peace and shrugged their shoulders, 
silently condemning what they were ashamed openly to oppose ; 
a comparatively few, and for them I have great respect, opposed 
from honest conviction that it w^as not wise. 

The opponents won a temporary victory : all the amendments 
which aimed to make the executive power a unit by giving to 
the governor the appointment of the state officers, who were to 
execute the purposes of his administration, failed in the legisla¬ 
ture. 

This was in 1873 and 1874. Mark the sudden change, the 
reasons for which I will not here discuss. Tlie very next year, 
1875, both branches of the legislature, by a unanimous vote, 
recommended the submission to the people of two of these 
amendments in the very words as reported by the constitutional 
commission and as previously rejected; giving to the governor, 
with the consent of the Senate, the appointment of a superintend¬ 
ent of canals and a superintendent of prisons, and abolishing the 
elected officers who now have charge of these great interests. 
The conventions of both political parties afterwards endorsed 
these two amendments. 


17 


GOV. TILDEX AXD THE SYEACUSE COXVEXTIOX. 

In the same year tlie conveHtioii of the political party to which 
tlie present governor belongs placed in nomination the men he 
designated for compti'oller, secretary of state, and attorney-gen¬ 
eral. The people ratified the nominations, and for the first time 
in tlie history of the state since 1840 tlie governor is surrounded 
by a cabinet of his own selection. 

I submit that it would have been better if tlie governor could 
have made the appointments directly without the h/tervention of 
a (convention, whose responsibility began with its organization, 
and ended with its adjournment. 

But in politics as in other things God moves in a mysterious 
way, and it may be that one of the most active and distinguished 
framers of the constitution of 1846 will prove to be the iiiimedi- 
ate instrument of undoing a part of that work which ought to 
liave been undone long ago. I am glad to see that the governor, 
in his message of this year, recommends the adoption of these 
two amendments. 


EEFOEM OF THE SENATE. 

The commission also recommended a reconstruction of the 
senate, making the districts larger and lengthening the term of 
service, thus giving to the olfice of senator a higher dignity. 
It was believed tliat, in this way, the members of one house would 
be emancipated from too close a devotion to local interests, and 
would be, therefore, more likely to put an effective check upon 
the multiplicity of laws with whi(di we are now cursed. With 
such a senate there would probably have been no need, during 
the four years previous to their recommendation, of the governor 
refusing his assent, as he did, to nearly five hundred bills sent to 
him fur aiiproval; noi* would the goveiTior be o^'erwhelmed with 
the duty of examining one thousand bills in a session, a task 
whicli no one man can undertake, without the certainty that he 
will find on the statute-book, after all, some .laws, objections to 
some provisions of which he then notices for the fii'st time. 

Tliis recommendation of the Constitutional Commission was 
rejected by the legislature. If any of you can, by combined 
efiorts, work out this reform, so as to make not more than eight 
or ten senate districts, giving to the senators from each district 
a constituency of about five hundred thousand, you will, as I 
believe, impart a much higher character to our future legislation, 


18 


rid the people of an ever-changing multiplicity of laws, and do 
most important service towards good government. 

My special object in referring to these recent events is appa¬ 
rent. It is to arouse this society and the people to the import¬ 
ance of securing the final adoption of the two amendments now 
before the legislature, and so making reform in the management 
of our canals and prisons permanent. If the present legislature 
acts favorably upon them, the people can ratify them at the next 
election. 

These will be only the beginning of constitutional changes, 
which will come sooner or later, and which will enable the gov¬ 
ernor, like the president, with the consent of the senate, to sur¬ 
round himself by a cabinet of officers, by whose aid and counsel 
lie can administer the government in harmony and with energy. 
This state contains a larger population than did the whole Union 
one hundred years ago. It needs as well contrived a govern¬ 
ment. 

Tlie expression of these general views in relation to the federal 
and state governments opens an easy way to what I have to say 
upon the question of the 

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF GREAT CITIES 

like Uew York. This question, after three years of great efforts 
at reform which is under existing laws at best but a temporary 
attempt at abstinence after a debauch, comes home to you in this 
city, with its million of people, its debt of over a hundred mil¬ 
lions of dollars, its army of politicians making politics a profes¬ 
sion and the public treasury the base of supplies; its thousands 
of voters, representing neither intelligence, industry nor property, 
but holding a balance of power between tens of thousands of 
others who do represent property and industry, and who, while 
law-abiding and intelligent, are rigidly divided by party lines, 
and vote at municipal elections according to their principles or 
prejudices in federal politics; its mayor, with just enough power 
to expose his weakness ; its common council too often controlled 
by men unfit to execute the smallest public trust; its jarring 
and discordant departments at open war with one another, and 
some in open defiance of the so-called head of all; its suspended 
public works and its endangered public credit, I say that the 
question of how to promote good government comes home here; 
and we are driven to discuss and to solve it if we can. 

It is the time for discussion ; the commission appointed by the 
governor is at work ; the legislature is in session ; the public at¬ 
tention is aroused. 


19 


Remember first: that notwithstanding all the evils that exist 
in tliis city, the lovers of good order and honest government are, 
as in other cities, very largely in the majority. Public order is 
as easily maintained here as anywdiere in the world. Respect 
for law and desire for peace is manifest, whenever the people 
gather into large assemblages. Mobs are rare and more promptly 
put down than elsewhere. The people not only love order, but 
realize that “ by an eternal law Providence has decreed vexation 
to violence.” They are desirous of good government, but all 
large bodies of men to act efficiently need leaders, and there are 
those whose duty it is to lead. Men of property, wdiether they 
have leisure or not, men of exceptional culture owe in this govern¬ 
ment of ours a higher duty than mere voting, and yet even this 
simple duty they more than others neglect. The late census 
shows two hundred thousand voters in this city, yet at the last 
election only one hundred and thirty thousand came to the polls. 
The people have manifested on more than one occasion within 
the last few years, that they are ready, when necessary, to break 
away in large numbers from party leaders. The last election was 
in its results a surprise to politicians. 

We have lived a hundred years and have not yet learned to 
govern large cities. In the beginning we had none. The few 
small cities of the period of the revolution, have grown enor¬ 
mously, and the number has increased. They will continue to 
grow, and to increase. To the State of New York especially the 
question of the government of cities is a pressing one. The 
census just taken"shows that very neaily one-half of our people 
live now in cities. New York and Brooklyn together contain 
one-third of the population of the state. In another generation 
they will have a majority of voters and give laws to the whole 
state. 

In solving this question we cannot trust to new and fanciful 
theories. A scheme of good practical government is not to be 
evolved out of any one man’s brain; but out of the habits, in¬ 
stincts and experience of men. We must use not our inventive 
faculties, but our common sense, our knowledge of men as they 
are and of human affairs as they have been, taking care not to 
overlook the condition of things subject to which we have to 
work. 

To begin with, popular government is the only thing possible. 
That is our system, and any attempt to change it or to evade it 
will only lead us from bad to worse. Some years ago as a cure 
for temporary evils, we practically took the government out of 
the hands of the people of the city, and imposed upon them all 
sorts of boards and commissions 5 and gave to the minority an 


20 


equal voice in choosing the hoard of su})ervisors, then vested with 
great powers. The evils existing before that were trilling, coni- 
j)ared with wdiat you have suffered since. 

It became my duty to speak officially upon the subject of a 
charter for this city in 1872 , a time when events compelled in¬ 
tense thought on the part of all of ns. 

I then said, “ The people of ISTew York City have no. right to 
claim nor have any portion of its people the right to ask a form 
of government not in conformity with the general character 
of the governments which prevail elsewhere in the state and 
country. 

“When the legislature gives to Yew York munici])al govern¬ 
ment in conformity with the general idea of American institu¬ 
tions, it performs its whole duty. All further responsibility is 
on the people of Yew York City themselves. If they cul])ably 
neglect their own affairs, if they will not give to their own po¬ 
litical affairs the same attention which the rest of the people in 
their several localities are in the habit of giving, they must suffer 
the consequences. Yo self-acting machinery can be devised, 
which will suffice to do that which the people are bound to do. 
Complicated machinery will serve only to invite combinations of 
designing men, whose operations can be concealed under it. 

“ Give to this city a' chief executive wdth full power to ap¬ 
point all heads of administrative departments; let him have 
power to remove his subordinates, being required publicly to as¬ 
sign his reasons; make him the head of the police, as the gover¬ 
nor is the head of the national guard in the state, with proper 
protection to the members of the force, against removal while 
faithful to duty. Make him responsible for all waste and im¬ 
proper expenditures, by requiring from him through the depart¬ 
ment of finance an estimate of what money is needed for the 
suppoi’t of the government and its various departments before 
any appropriation is made. Give to the people full representa¬ 
tion in the common council, and confine it to legislative duties, 
and exclude it from all administrative; give to it the power to 
reduce estimates of expenditures, but not to increase them, the 
power to limit expenditures, but not to originate appropriations. 
Give to the mayor and common council the power to regulate 
the local taxes, to expend each year what money they think fit, 
in cash expenditures ; but limit rigidly by law the power to in¬ 
crease debt. If the expenditures are wasteful let the people feel 
it in their taxes, and apply the corrective. Make the mayor re¬ 
movable for misconduct by the governor. . . . 

“Add such provisions as shall secui’e frequent publication of 
the expenditures and transactions of the city government, ready 


21 


access of tax-pa^’ers to the city accounts; and opportunities to 
the people to change their chief inagisti-ate at short intervals; 
and all the safeguards of good government are furnished.” 

As subsequent retlection has not modified these views, you will 
excuse me for having repeated them, and for merely enlarging 
on them in what further I have to say. 

I hold 'that in 


A SCHEME OF CITY GOVEENMENT, 

there is more than in any other, the need of a strong and thor¬ 
oughly responsible single executive; for the same reason that 
when a body of men are confined within the narrow limits of a 
ship in mid-ocean, the government thereof must of necessity be 
administered by one man, prompt to make his will felt, and to 
whom prompt obedience must be rendered, and who knows that 
he alone will be held responsible for disaster. 

We can less afford here than in a community more dispersed, 
to dispense with concentrated responsibility. 

Have therefore no provision in your charter, requiring the 
consent of the common council to the mayor’s appointment of 
heads of departments ; that only opens the way for dictation by 
the council or for bargains. This is not the way to get good 
men, nor to fix the full responsibility for mal-administration 
upon the people’s chosen prime minister. 

The head of every department should be a single one—no 
boards or commissions—and so the responsibility to the mayor 
will be concentrated, as is his to the people. What we need is 
not a complex system, but one that is simple and direct; all 
thi’ough which runs one sound principle. Such is the principle 
of the immense business of the greatest merchant of New York 
—one man at the head of every branch of it, and every one of 
these responsible to him, tlie head of all. 

It seems strange that men cannot see a truth so plain, to wit: 
that this principle which they instinctively apply to their private 
business, must be applied also in the public service, or we cannot 
hop>e for good results. 

And yet in 1872, seventy chosen men of this city, most of them 
familiar with, and successful in business, submitted a charter to 
the legislature, which in every essential particular violated this 
sound business principle, and scattered and dispersed responsi¬ 
bility to a greater degree than any previous instrument had ever 
done. The charter was so grotesque, that members of the legis¬ 
lature who voted for it protested, some publicly and some pri¬ 
vately, that they acted under a sort of duress ; they thus endeav- 


22 


ored to throw the responsibility of the evil consequences which 
they foresaw, upon the shoulders of the committee of citizens 
who were led to indorse the measure. No doubt the committee, 
having much to do with their own business, intrusted and left 
the work to some single hand. If that charter had become a law, 
its failure in practice would have been quoted by some as another 
proof of the inefficiency of popular government; whereas it 
would have been due to the folly of trying to invent a plan^ of 
government which ignored the fundamental principles which 
the people, in the light of centuries of experience, had estab¬ 
lished for themselves, to wit: direct responsibility of officials, and 
power in the people, by a majority vote, to sweep bad men out 
of office. 

It will be objected that 

THE EXPERIENCE OP LARGE CITIES 

ill their mayors does not warrant vesting in them so much power. 
Let me ask does the experience of these same cities under mayors 
without power prove that system to be a better one. The latter 
has been tried, it has always failed. The other never has been 
tried at all. 

It will be objected that the system will give to the mayor too 
much patronage. So much the worse for him. The distribution 
of patronage makes enemies as well as friends. No man in 
America ever undertook to build up a personal party, or perpetu¬ 
ate personal power by means of it, and succeeded. AVould you 
rather have patronage in the hands of boards in whose secret 
councils it is parcelled out ? Is it not better to submit to the 
minor evil of an executive with too great patronage than to ac¬ 
cept the greater one of an executive with too little power ? 

Some one will say what reason have we to expect the people 
will choose a proper man for mayor ? If they will not, that is 
a defect for which I can propose no remedy. I believe they 
will. The more importance and power you give to the office, 
the more importance the people will attach to their selection of 
the man to hll it; and the more likely is it that the most capable 
and trustworthy men among you will be willing to accept it. 
Concentrate the attention of the people upon the selection of a 
mayor, as the one only thing they have to do with the executive 
branch of the government. 

When any of you are called upon to vote, whether in a state 
or municipal government, for a number of subordinate officers, 
each of whom should have peculiar aptitude for his special 
limited duty, are you not conscious of your inability to give a 


23 


vote satisfactory to yourselves ? Moreover, bear in mind that in 
selecting these men for special duties you, as a voter, do not 
have, as the governor or mayor would have, your choice among all 
the men of the state or city, but are limited to deciding between 
two or three, who happen to get the voices of their respective 
conventions, and who are often much inferior to many who 
could be selected from the whole people. 

A rich man in York once expressed to me his indigna¬ 
tion that his coachman’s vote could offset his. I told him his 
coachman probably paid more attention to public affairs than he 
did. I met the same man at the polls a few days afterwards, 
with his hands full of tickets, and the tickets full of names, 
while his face was full of perplexity and despair ; and he asked 
me, “ What are all these things we have to vote for to-day ? I 
don’t know anything about them ! ” I could not resist telling 
him to ask his coachman. If this worthy citizen had had to vote 
simply for a mayor, and the common councilman from his 
ward, he would have had no perplexity. 

But you say: If you give the mayor so much power how are 
we to restrain him from abusing it ? 

I answer first, you will have the restraint of the mayor’s con¬ 
sciousness that for all mal-administration he is accountable ; 
that on him will be concentrated the criticisms of your powerful 
press ; that his will be the shame before public opinion. 
Second, give power to the governor to remove the mayor on 
charges, making public his reasons therefor. Such a power over 
sheriffs and district attorneys has long been held by the gover¬ 
nor. It has rarely been exerted, and there is little danger of its 
ever being abused. This is not centralization. The governor 
acts judicially. I do not favor his approval being required to 
the removal of subordinate city oflicials. That is centralization. 
That brings the governor in to meddle with the actual adminis¬ 
tration of city affairs. 


POIJCE. 

I have said I would make the mayor the chief of all depart¬ 
ments. I include the police. It is the general desire, and a 
praiseworthy one, to keep the police free from politics. Do the 
non-partisan commissions composed of an equal number of men 
from both parties effect this ? On the contrary, you bring in the 
lower kind of politics from both parties. It is in the soil of non¬ 
partisan boards, so called, that rings originate and fiourish. The 
patronage is divided, half bestowed to each political half. The 
small politicians of both sides must be listened to. 


24 


Make the mayor comtiiaiuler-iii-cliief of the police in the same 
manner as the governor is of the national guard of the state. 
Let the mayor appoint a secretary of police, who shall hear to 
him and the force the same relation the adjutant-general does to 
the goyernor and the national guard. Let him put in actual 
command of the force a suj^erintendent to hold office for a term 
long enough to enable him to perfect organization and discipline ; 
and Iiave provision for his prompt suspension for misconduct, and 
for his removal after trial by a proper tribunal. 

Organize the whole force generally, except as to arming it, 
upon tlie military principles of the state national guard. 1 on 
can dispense with your board of commissioners. The present 
members of the foi’ce would remain during good behavior, so 
that there will be no danger of its being filled up with reference 
to party or personal interests. I haye no fear that a police force 
thus organized could ever be used by any man for personal or 
party ends. The national guard is the most purel}^ non-partisan 
body of men in this state; and any officer who attempted to 
make it otherwise, would be driven out of the organization by 
the universal condemnation of his comrades. 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF CITY GOVERNMENT. 

There remains for consideration only what is called the legis- 
tative branch of the city government. It is rather a business 
body for regulating the use and management of the corporate 
property, a municipal board of directors. It comes nearest to a 
legislature when it levies the taxes for local pur])oses. 

Two branches of the common council are useless; one is 
sufficient. Let each ward have one representative. One will 
probably be more carefully selected than three or more. Add to 
these not more than five to be chosen by the city at lai’ge upon 
a general ticket, at the same time and for the same term as the 
inayor. Their influence as representing the whole people in a 
body of men chosen by the several wards^ might be beneficial, and 
if they be few in numbe]*, public attention -will be in a degree 
concentrated upon their selection as upon the mayor. 

SEPARATE BOARD OF TAXPAA^ERS. 

In the light of experience I can suggest nothing better. I 
leave out of consideration the election of one branch of the leg¬ 
islative body by and from the class of so-called tax-payers.” 
Our people look upon the right to office to bo as universal as the 
right of suffrage, and we must deal with facts as they are. I also 


25 


leave ont of view tlie various schemes of miuority represeiita- 
tion. They tend to take away the sense of responsibility on the 
part of the people in selecting their agents, and from the agent 
when selected a proper dread of popular resentment. The agent 
when selected by a minority is beyond the reach of popular "con¬ 
demnation. 

ATheii these scliemes of minority representation and a sepa¬ 
rate board of taxpayers are presented to my mind, I cannot help 
thinking of the old and notoi’ious non-partisan board of supervi¬ 
sors of this county, all of whom, although not required by law to 
be sncli, were I think tax-payers and property-owmers, and one- 
half of whom w^ere designated by the minority of the people. 

Tlie daily developments of the times do not show that the pos¬ 
session of property affords a guaranty of public or private virtue, 
or of fidelity even to the ordinaiy duties of citizenship; but ex¬ 
perience does show that some of the most faithful and efficient 
men in public and private life live poor and die poor. 

TAXING POWER. 

Now as to the exertion of the taxing power by the local govern¬ 
ment: require the mayor, whose own appointee would be comp¬ 
troller, to submit to the common council his budget of expenses 
with full details, and an explanation of why the money is 
needed ; then give to the common council the power to reduce, 
but not to increase any item. There is no necessity that the com¬ 
mon council should have the power to originate appropriations or 
to give to the administration more money than it asks for. To 
protect the public purse the common council needs only the power 
to shut it against unreasonable demands, not to open it on their 
own motion. The mayor and heads of departments should not 
have the expenditure of money forced upon them, beyond what 
they, with their more intimate knowledge, are willing to say 
they need. This plan leaves with the common council the tax¬ 
ing power, but makes the people’s chosen executive officer 
directly responsible for unnecessary expenditures. This is better 
than giving power to veto items. It leaves no doubt as to who is 
responsible for an objectionable appropriation. It gives no 
chance to say it was passed in deference to the common council. 

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. 

A separation of the municipal from the general election would 
seem to be wdse. The local elections in the towns throughout the 
state are held in the spring. It is a mistake to suppose, as some 
do, that the attention of the people cannot be aroused at a munici 
3 


26 


pal election, held separately. The statistics show that during the 
many years when the city election was held in the spring, the 
vote for mayor was as large and sometimes larger than that cast 
in the following fall for state officers. Holding a municipal 
election in December, a month or less after the genei'al election 
in November, as w^as the practice for some years, was a great 
mistake. That marked the election for city officers as a second¬ 
ary affair; whereas it ought to be to yon, whose home interests 
are exclusive!}^ involved at least, as impoi-tant as any. More¬ 
over, the municipal election in December would be, more or less, 
controlled by the political combinations of November. 

One word in regard to incurring debt, that insidious form of 
fastening taxation upon the people. I feel that the power to do 
so should be limited in some way. Nevertheless it is very diffi¬ 
cult to decide upon the precise 

LIMIT OF INDEBTEDNESS. 

A city in constant process of development and of unlimited 
credit might at times suffer under restraints that were too rigid, 
and a time of public calamity might impose the necessity of re¬ 
lief by speedy borrowing. Whether the vote of taxpayers so 
called should be taken on every jiroposition to incur a debt; 
whether a limitation of the indebtedness to a fixed percentage 
upon the valuation of the total assessed property should be im¬ 
posed ; whether the whole subject should not be left to the dis¬ 
cretion of the common council, with a power of absolute veto in 
the mayor, are questions upon which much can be said pro and 
con. 

The tax-payers might prove to be more willing to incur debt 
than to pay immediate taxes; the limitation to a percentage of 
value might not only be difficult to adjust, but might cause em¬ 
barrassment in times of great emergency; the power in the local 
authorities might be abused, and the more readily because tlie 
abuse, not being felt immediately by the people, would not be 
promptly punished. 

My own views, however, incline to this last plan, but (unless 
perhaps for public parks), no debt of a permanent character 
should be incurred, except for public improvements like water¬ 
works and do(;ks wdiich may be reasonably counted on to yield 
revenues to pay interest and to contribute "to a sinking fund for 
redemption. 

Public buildings, and all expenses incidental to general im¬ 
provements, should be paid for from the proceeds of immediate 
taxation. When for such purposes your expenditures exceed the 


willingness of the people to be taxed, it is time to cut down the 
expenditures. 

Tlie fact that municipalities, all over the country, have, within 
the past few years, run largely into debt, affords no argument 
against leaving this subject to local governments. Every debt 
has been authorized by the superior government, the state. 

The worst solution of this question is to leave it in the power 
of the legislature to force indebtedness on you from time to time 
as is now done. 

The main features of a city’s local government should be se¬ 
cured against capricious changes by constitutional provision. 
The state must put proper limits upon these minor governments, 
just as the state government has limitations put upon it by the con¬ 
stitution. These limits being imposed, I say let them alone. If 
you cannot govern yourselves well so far as relates to your local 
interests, is it possible you will be better taken care of by men 
chosen by others than yourselves ? 

CONCLUSION. 

I thank you for your patient attention. 1 do not presume that 
I have taught you anything. If I have succeeded by any sug¬ 
gestions in exciting more active thought, I am content. I am 
not pleading for any one-man power in government. I am plead¬ 
ing merel}^ for the effective execution of the power and will of the 
people by their one chosen executive, subject to the restraints 
of the legislature, the judiciary and the law; witliout which 
confusion ensues, carelessness creeps in and responsibility be¬ 
comes unsettled. 

We must learn to govern ourselves in our several localities. 
You must learn to do it here. Put your shoulders to the wheel, 
instead of praying to the Hercules of Albany or of Washington. 
Our form of government demands political duty fi-om every man; 
if any among you habitually neglect it, then when mii?govern- 
ment comes “ Thou art the man,” the responsible man. 

Those who have special advantages must take the heaviest 
burdens. Persevere as you do in other things, in spite of occa¬ 
sional disappointments. lYu need not all attend primary meetings. 
Yoluntary associations of men who desire not offices for them¬ 
selves, but good government for all, can, as experience proves, 
exercise a powerful influence. 

But you cannot do your political duty by proxy, by hiring 
others to do it. Your brains ought to be worth more than your 
money, and fai* less demoralizing in political work. The mass of 
the people will be quick to recognize your purposes if honest and 


28 



unselfish ; and those who make candidates and seek office will be 
anxious for yonr favor. 

Do not trust to devices to make the minority control and 
govern the majority. That is cunning, not wisdom. Yon have 
had need in recent years of the overwhelming power of the 
general voice to arrest great evils; you may need it again. 

Our forefathers did not invent a government out of their own 
imaginations. They knew that for centuries their ancestors in 
Europe had been struggling after responsible government, for 
the principle that power and aGConntability to the people should 
go together^ and upon that knowledge they built. 

Folknving tlieir precepts and example we may hope to witness the 
steady, healthy growth of our country, state and city, growth not 
only in tlie outward signs of prosperity and power, but in a wider 
and wider diffusion of the elements of domestic happiness among 
the people. The glory and sti’ength of a state consist not in its 
public edifices, its public works, its monuments of public or pri¬ 
vate splendor and magnificence. Its sources of strength are to be 
found in the purity and vigor of character, the self-control of the 
men and w^omen who constitute it; its true glory in the general 
diffusion of virtue, peace, and comfort among the homes of its 
people. That is the most perfect state in which the benefits of 
constantly added wealth reach farthest down in the scale of soci¬ 
ety, and in which self-government, the government of each man 
over himself, renders other government all but unnecessary. 

To this wholesome and substantial grow^th the efforts oi every 
one of us can contribute, by the help of Him whose first law is 
order and whose service is perfect freedom.” 

At the close of the address, which was heard with profound 
attention, and frequently interrupted by hearty applause, a vote 
of thanks was presented to Gov. Hoffman on motion of Gov. 
Haines, seconded by Hev. Thomas D. Anderson, D.D., both of 
wdiom made brief and eloquent remarks in support of the reso¬ 
lution. 


LBJl '05 


• NT 



‘ < 


Ik 



I 



m 

* 0 




I 





*1 










« 


* 


i 








• . r ' 

>< 



s . 


O 









I ^ 

.V 



^ 


« 




1 ' 





.. -'Vi, ..■ .... -i.,„.^... jbiAh. . 


.t.:e 


w 

«r- » 


4'\* 

^ '■ 


::'.- 4 <r:'-, 

.<1 


"C ''"c' 

^ ■-■ i I ‘ JB"m'iilii I^w' til I 

. 1^ ^KIV^n93 ' N 


|fc 'X';-'.£’-J.'M 


r '.■> ^ ■ 1»-Vr*{4is» v ' ■ “''t* 

a-. *l„ .sJJ ■’ 

'; - --- Si;#- ■■'■ ' 'F ^ 

:v\-:> : ^■ ■ .. '5 ^ 4,.. 





y{i^V •■ J- 


^ 4* ... - */ 

iW'%'@y,f"'>':-\ "■?-^ 

.A/!%V ; ^ . •^ 

/A.x*. •' . ■ V . . ri ■ ~ 


.*k 







. 




.V 


I '.«■ *.'. .«<■' m 2 ^fi*''".''' 'i-msi? 




r. 


4^, 




. ^..-v,.' ■ % 

X . ".4h»>V'‘j ■ /V.: 





McT’'.. J-'jSV'^. ;'' .*■(■ ^■ 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


0 019 308 900 8 




